(To play devils advocate, coming from the perspective of my retired LEO friend)
legal warrants can we written to seize guns which can then be tested and information extracted from them.
Legal warrants can be written to search and seize cars, so they can be searched and extensively examined to extract information/evidence from them.
The argument goes that right now, warrants can be written to gain access to basically everything a criminal has/owns/has been in contact with so that it can all be gobbled up and analyzed.
People supporting the government in this believe the same is true for digital data - they don't care that it's on a phone or laptop or "online", they just think a warrant should let the government access it. If Apple can do it, then they must.
(Note I don't personally agree with that, but I understand it)
Which is why they ought to ensure that they cannot do it. And it's why we should resist any law mandating that they be forced to include a pre-emptive backdoor.
legal warrants can we written to seize guns which can then be tested and information extracted from them.
Legal warrants can be written to search and seize cars, so they can be searched and extensively examined to extract information/evidence from them.
The argument goes that right now, warrants can be written to gain access to basically everything a criminal has/owns/has been in contact with so that it can all be gobbled up and analyzed.
People supporting the government in this believe the same is true for digital data - they don't care that it's on a phone or laptop or "online", they just think a warrant should let the government access it. If Apple can do it, then they must.
(Note I don't personally agree with that, but I understand it)